UK government's U-turn on digital ID was inevitable from the start

The UK government’s plans for a national digital identity scheme were never going to be mandatory.

That’s not some sort of scoop – although Computer Weekly predicted as much last year – nor is it any insight into the political firestorm that Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s proposals for a mandatory scheme ignited. It’s simply because it was a completely stupid, poorly thought out, and unworkable idea in the first place.

Let’s be clear – digital identity is a good thing. If implemented well, it can make online public services easier to use and as frictionless as the best commercial apps; it can give users more control of their data; enhance security and privacy; and act as a foundation for greater innovation in dealing with the state and the private sector.

Despite the knee-jerk reaction of some civil liberties campaigners, digital ID can also protect people from state over-reach, avoid creation of a national citizen database, and restrict government from tracking our digital activity.

The critical clause in that claim came at the start – “if implemented well”. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s version of digital ID was doomed by whoever advised him to pitch it as a means to tackle illegal immigration, and by making it mandatory.

Honestly – who advises Number 10 on digital issues like this? Have they ever talked to a smartphone-using, app-loving human being?

Digital ID – like any technology – is a tool. A means to an end. It’s not, in itself, a solution to any political, social or business need. There was – and hopefully, still is – an opportunity to show the public what digital identity can do for them, and how it can help to make their digital lives easier. But the government transgressed against some simple, basic rules around encouraging more widespread use of any technology.

Don’t force it – make people want to use it; “mandatory” was a killer. Don’t politicise it – respond to public / user need and don’t associate it with a contentious political (or corporate) goal. Don’t ignore people’s fears – explain early how you will address any potentially negative consequences; be open and up front.

The government’s cack-handed approach may have put back the progress of digital identity in the UK for years, but as it slowly withdraws from the conversation – which it inevitably will across this Parliament – private sector providers can still overcome the controversy Starmer created.

A consultation on government plans begins soon. It will surprise nobody if the result is a recommendation to support a competitive market of identity apps, with a half-baked government app available as an option, but one which most people will choose not to use.

In the circumstances, that’s probably the best outcome. But what a missed opportunity, caused by such terrible and avoidable government messaging.